Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
No, that's not the case. All the current legislation provides for is the process that I outlined about. ie:
1. Accuser makes allegation of copyright infringement to ISP.
2. ISP issues warning.
3. Periodically, rights holder can request anonymised list of subscribers who have exceeded a specified number of infringement allegations in a given period.
4. Rights holder presents evidence of wrongdoing to court.
5. Court issues order for ISP to disclose personal information.
6. Rights holder takes copyright infringement action against alleged infringer through the courts.
That's the limit of the law as it currently stands. In steps 4 and 6, evidence has to be presented to a court, just as it did under previous legislation. There's no change in the burden of guilt: it's still "innocent until proven guilty". Really the only change that the DEA makes is steps 1-3. A rights-holder accusing someone of copyright infringement has to provide exactly the same evidence to a court as they would have done previously.
|
4 to 6 are about the copyright holder's ability to persue a civil case against infringers, something they already had the power to do. There is still no requirement for any evidence for any stage up to and including an entire family being denied access to the internet.
But you still haven't explained how people are supposed to prove their innocence, especially without any Legal Aid. The entertainment industry will have very expensive lawyers, and not all judges will know that an IP address isn't the location of a website where you can download illegal files (which is what one of the MPs who passed this law thought).